Will human population and economic activity exceed the Planets carrying capacity?

[ruby sparks]

I agree that we should pursue a "broad portfolio of potential countermeasures", but I disagree that "non-coercive population control" is among them. The problems we have aren't going to go away if the population peaks a decade earlier, or at a billion fewer people.

Sure, and I never said that, but nonetheless a lower population would help. The problems are definitely not going to just go away no matter what we we. It's more a case of how bumpy the ride is going to be.

We should be pursuing the goal of making modern contraception more available to people who currently lack access to it. But that goal does not require crying about how there are too many Africans already.

I would say we should not only be saying that there are or will be too many Africans and certainly not focusing only on Africa and certainly not for racist or privileged reasons. During the thread, dozens of countries in all parts of the world including the 'west' have been cited or mentioned in relation to this. And outside the thread, many countries are being cited in the discussions, including 'western' ones.

Yes, often these days Africa gets cited, but that's because it's where the greatest increase is coming from, which is an objective reason to cite it.

Look, I do agree with you that it would be bad if post-colonialism, or marxism, or racism or what have you was behind all of this, and for all I know it may be a factor for some (probably politicians more so than scientists), and we should all guard against unsavoury motives of that sort creeping into our thinking, but honestly I don't think it's the main reason. And yes, it is somewhat inconsistent of the 'west' to point the finger of blame at undeveloped countries, for several reasons. I agree. I'm sympathetic to what you say on that. There's a similar issue around asking poorer countries not to hunt wildlife or cut down trees when 'we' did that to our heart's content for centuries. Yes. I get all that.

But just as I don't think that's ultimately a good reason not to try to save the forests, I don't think it's a good reason to discount or decry Family Planning. And when we go about both of those (and other measures) that affect countries outside our own, we should imo compensate them, both as an incentive and to acknowledge that the problems are largely of our making, not theirs. And imo people in the 'west' need to be doing much more themselves, in their own countries, in many ways, especially given their/our massive carbon footprints per person. And we should be ready to take people from other countries into our own, if necessary. So yes, to an extent I agree with you about the finger of blame not always being pointed in a fair direction. But as ever, I don't think this is ultimately a good reason to stop doing stuff, because for one reason or another it's now an issue for everyone on the planet, rich and poor, and the poor are going to bear the brunt of climate change so all the more reason for them to be helped.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I would say we should not only be saying that there are or will be too many Africans and certainly not focusing only on Africa and certainly not for racist or privileged reasons. During the thread, dozens of countries in all parts of the world including the 'west' have been cited or mentioned in relation to this. And outside the thread, many countries are being cited in the discussions, including 'western' ones.

Yes, often these days Africa gets cited, but that's because it's where the greatest increase is coming from, which is an objective reason to cite it.

Poverty is less and less the reason access to contraceptives are limited for Africans. The number one reason is cultural, ie religious. It's all the classic bullshit conservative reasons. Stuff like fear of unfaithfulness if it's allowed. Or even that it's the duty of a woman to have as many children as possible.

It's hard to over-state how religious Africa has become of late. Since the 80'ies Pentacostals and Charismatic Christians have pretty much taken over, being over half the Christians in Africa. Or I'd like to call them... the loony Christians. The more sensible Christianity is increasingly marginalised. And I'm calling Catholicism "more sensible" Christianity, even though they to are opposed to contraceptives.

I have a friend who is a family planning advocate in Ghana, and the amount of ridiculous (and retarded) bullshit she faces would be unbelievable if it in fact didn't happen.

A big problem in Africa is old heads of families with dementia giving away what heritage there is to TV-pastors and mega-churches. It's just loony. And it's getting worse.

 

[ruby sparks]

I would say we should not only be saying that there are or will be too many Africans and certainly not focusing only on Africa and certainly not for racist or privileged reasons. During the thread, dozens of countries in all parts of the world including the 'west' have been cited or mentioned in relation to this. And outside the thread, many countries are being cited in the discussions, including 'western' ones.

Yes, often these days Africa gets cited, but that's because it's where the greatest increase is coming from, which is an objective reason to cite it.

Poverty is less and less the reason access to contraceptives are limited for Africans. The number one reason is cultural, ie religious. It's all the classic bullshit conservative reasons. Stuff like fear of unfaithfulness if it's allowed. Or even that it's the duty of a woman to have as many children as possible.

It's hard to over-state how religious Africa has become of late. Since the 80'ies Pentacostals and Charismatic Christians have pretty much taken over, being over half the Christians in Africa. Or I'd like to call them... the loony Christians. The more sensible Christianity is increasingly marginalised. And I'm calling Catholicism "more sensible" Christianity, even though they to are opposed to contraceptives.

I have a friend who is a family planning advocate in Ghana, and the amount of ridiculous (and retarded) bullshit she faces would be unbelievable if it in fact didn't happen.

A big problem in Africa is old heads of families with dementia giving away what heritage there is to TV-pastors and mega-churches. It's just loony. And it's getting worse.

Yeah, I don't doubt it. Similarly, it is tremendous hard work getting typical/average 'westerners' to kick their environmentally-damaging habits, which are, per person, doing much more damage than the typical person in the Third World. Someone in certain African countries, for instance, could hypothetically have hundreds of children and it wouldn't (as things stand) have the same impact as one averagely affluent child in the USA, for example (less so but still similarly so for most 'western' countries).

Overall, there's no doubt that for a variety of reasons (including selfishness, laziness, tribal/religious thinking and other evolved/learned habits, including the urge to reproduce and better one's circumstances in material terms) the human species has tended to be very, very slow to respond to this potential crisis, which has been flagged up since the early 1970's at least, and before, to a lesser extent. And Political short-termism and the often insidious and covert influence (on both politicians and the average citizen) of wealthy and powerful capitalist/consumerist organisations and businesses with vested short term interests, often financial, is another big impediment.

A big cultural shift is needed worldwide. We need to change our priorities. And imo it has been very unfortunate and unhelpful and possibly a matter of disgrace that the USA, even before Trump, was not able to join in wholeheartedly with that (in International goal-setting treaties for example), because if it had, it would have helped greatly, given the influence the USA could have had in both tangible terms and in terms of strengthening and solidifying the cause and making wider acceptance of it easier. I would guess that there are countries who might be saying to themselves, 'well, if even the USA, the so-called world leader/power and so-called greatest country in the world, is not particularly willing and is dragging its feet, why should we bust a gut when the USA is effectively letting us off the hook?' And I'm mainly not talking about population-related issues here.

I'm not aiming to pick on the USA unreasonably of course, and certainly not anyone here in the forum who might live there. Similar things could be said of several other 'western' countries, including mine, and indeed about me personally. But perhaps the USA is the most pronounced general example, and yes, we could do with much more focus on that and on other 'western' countries rather than, or at least as well as, on for example other issues in Africa and to do with Africans.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I would say we should not only be saying that there are or will be too many Africans and certainly not focusing only on Africa and certainly not for racist or privileged reasons. During the thread, dozens of countries in all parts of the world including the 'west' have been cited or mentioned in relation to this. And outside the thread, many countries are being cited in the discussions, including 'western' ones.

Yes, often these days Africa gets cited, but that's because it's where the greatest increase is coming from, which is an objective reason to cite it.

Poverty is less and less the reason access to contraceptives are limited for Africans. The number one reason is cultural, ie religious. It's all the classic bullshit conservative reasons. Stuff like fear of unfaithfulness if it's allowed. Or even that it's the duty of a woman to have as many children as possible.

It's hard to over-state how religious Africa has become of late. Since the 80'ies Pentacostals and Charismatic Christians have pretty much taken over, being over half the Christians in Africa. Or I'd like to call them... the loony Christians. The more sensible Christianity is increasingly marginalised. And I'm calling Catholicism "more sensible" Christianity, even though they to are opposed to contraceptives.

I have a friend who is a family planning advocate in Ghana, and the amount of ridiculous (and retarded) bullshit she faces would be unbelievable if it in fact didn't happen.

A big problem in Africa is old heads of families with dementia giving away what heritage there is to TV-pastors and mega-churches. It's just loony. And it's getting worse.

Yeah, I don't doubt it. Similarly, it is tremendous hard work getting typical/average 'westerners' to kick their environmentally-damaging habits, which are, per person, doing much more damage than the typical person in the Third World. Someone in certain African countries, for instance, could hypothetically have hundreds of children and it wouldn't (as things stand) have the same impact as one averagely affluent child in the USA, for example (less so but still similarly so for most 'western' countries).

Overall, there's no doubt that for a variety of reasons (including selfishness, laziness, tribal/religious thinking and other evolved/learned habits, including the urge to reproduce) the human species has tended to be very, very slow to respond to this potential crisis, which has been flagged up since the early 1970's at least, and before, to a lesser extent. And Political short-termism and the often insidious and covert influence (on both politicians and the average citizen) of wealthy and powerful capitalist/consumerist organisations and businesses with vested short term interests, often financial, is another big impediment.

A big cultural shift is needed worldwide and imo it has been very unfortunate and unhelpful and possibly a matter of disgrace that the USA, even before Trump, was not able to join in wholeheartedly with that (in International goal-setting treaties for example), because if it had, it would have helped greatly, given the influence the USA could have had in both tangible terms and in terms of strengthening and solidifying the cause and making wider acceptance of it easier. I would guess that there are countries who might be saying to themselves, 'well, if even the USA, the so-called world leader/power and so-called greatest country in the world, is not particularly willing and is dragging its feet, why should we bust a gut when the USA is effectively letting us off the hook?' And I'm mainly not talking about population-related issues here.

I'm not aiming to pick on the USA unreasonably of course, and certainly not anyone here in the forum who might live there. Similar things could be said of several other 'western' countries, including mine, and indeed about me personally. But perhaps the USA is the most pronounced general example, and yes, we could do with much more focus on that and on other 'western' countries rather than, or at least as well as, on for example other issues in Africa and to do with Africans.

Why not pick on USA specifically? The West is no longer the worst offender. At this point in time, all countries are pretty much on the same level. Except one extreme outlier = USA (and Canada and Saudi Arabia).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

We should pick on them.

 

[4321lynx]

Why not pick on USA specifically? The West is no longer the worst offender. At this point in time, all countries are pretty much on the same level. Except one extreme outlier = USA (and Canada and Saudi Arabia).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

We should pick on them.

What about Australia? Why does Oz get a free pass?

The vastness of your statistics quoted boggles the mind. Is that the best you and Wikipedia can do?

 

[ruby sparks]

Why not pick on USA specifically? The West is no longer the worst offender. At this point in time, all countries are pretty much on the same level. Except one extreme outlier = USA (and Canada and Saudi Arabia).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

We should pick on them.

Well, with the caveat that 'pick on' might not necessarily be the best term (or it might), no prob. We should focus on whatever countries we need to focus on, in the ways that we might best focus (which may vary between countries) if we are to try to do something about the situation.

And thanks for posting the useful data.

For example (not thought through) we might focus on deforestation in certain countries, population growth in others, agriculture in others, and consumption/carbon footprints in others. The last is arguably the main priority. And probably we could focus on all countries in all relevant ways to different extents.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Why not pick on USA specifically? The West is no longer the worst offender. At this point in time, all countries are pretty much on the same level. Except one extreme outlier = USA (and Canada and Saudi Arabia).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

We should pick on them.

Well, with the caveat that 'pick on' might not necessarily be the best term (or it might), no prob. We should focus on whatever countries we need to focus on, in the ways that we might best focus (which may vary between countries) if we are to try to do something about the situation.

And thanks for posting the useful data.

For example (not thought through) we might focus on deforestation in certain countries, population growth in others, agriculture in others, and consumption/carbon footprints in others. The last is arguably the main priority. And probably we could focus on all countries in all relevant ways to different extents.

Deforestation isn't as bad as we've been led to believe. Compared to other things we're doing to the environment deforestation is not the among the worst offenders. It's just an easier sell to the masses. Few things get them going like sad furry animals.

A bigger problem is what we're using that land for. We're growing extreme luxury foods that are not sustainable. Shipping them across the globe.

It's reached a point where it's normal for people in Sweden to have access to fresh oranges and pineapple all year round. That sort of behaviour needs to stop. It's so abdurdly frivolous. Or tiger shrimps available globally at any time. And it's not like it's much of a sacrifice to stop this nonsense. There's replacement foods that are just fine.

If we just stopped eating like idiots we could sustain ten times more humans easy. Our behaviour now is just preposterous.

 

[ruby sparks]

Why not pick on USA specifically? The West is no longer the worst offender. At this point in time, all countries are pretty much on the same level. Except one extreme outlier = USA (and Canada and Saudi Arabia).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

We should pick on them.

Well, with the caveat that 'pick on' might not necessarily be the best term (or it might), no prob. We should focus on whatever countries we need to focus on, in the ways that we might best focus (which may vary between countries) if we are to try to do something about the situation.

And thanks for posting the useful data.

For example (not thought through) we might focus on deforestation in certain countries, population growth in others, agriculture in others, and consumption/carbon footprints in others. The last is arguably the main priority. And probably we could focus on all countries in all relevant ways to different extents.

Deforestation isn't as bad as we've been led to believe. Compared to other things we're doing to the environment deforestation is not the among the worst offenders. It's just an easier sell to the masses. Few things get them going like sad furry animals.

A bigger problem is what we're using that land for. We're growing extreme luxury foods that are not sustainable. Shipping them across the globe.

It's reached a point where it's normal for people in Sweden to have access to fresh oranges and pineapple all year round. That sort of behaviour needs to stop. It's so abdurdly frivolous. Or tiger shrimps available globally at any time. And it's not like it's much of a sacrifice to stop this nonsense. There's replacement foods that are just fine.

If we just stopped eating like idiots we could sustain ten times more humans easy. Our behaviour now is just preposterous.

I agree with a lot of that. I also read that if we all stopped eating meat, or ate it much less often, that would help too. And expecting meat to be cheap adds to the problem, again so I read.

Just on deforestation, I had in mind not the loss of wildlife (though that is an issue too, with only 40% of all world species extant today compared to how many there were 50 years ago) but the issue of CO2. Apparently, deforestation results in more atmospheric CO2 than the sum total of all the cars and trucks on the world's roads:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

 

[skepticalbip]

Deforestation isn't as bad as we've been led to believe. Compared to other things we're doing to the environment deforestation is not the among the worst offenders. It's just an easier sell to the masses. Few things get them going like sad furry animals.

A bigger problem is what we're using that land for. We're growing extreme luxury foods that are not sustainable. Shipping them across the globe.

It's reached a point where it's normal for people in Sweden to have access to fresh oranges and pineapple all year round. That sort of behaviour needs to stop. It's so abdurdly frivolous. Or tiger shrimps available globally at any time. And it's not like it's much of a sacrifice to stop this nonsense. There's replacement foods that are just fine.

If we just stopped eating like idiots we could sustain ten times more humans easy. Our behaviour now is just preposterous.

I agree with a lot of that. I also read that if we all stopped eating meat, or ate it much less often, that would help too. And expecting meat to be cheap adds to the problem, again so I read.

Just on deforestation, I had in mind not the loss of wildlife (though that is an issue too, with only 40% of all world species extant today compared to how many there were 50 years ago) but the issue of CO2. Apparently, deforestation results in more atmospheric CO2 than the sum total of all the cars and trucks on the world's roads:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

When reading claims in articles, it is always good to consider how objectively the "research" was done. The fact that it supports what you want to believe is not sufficient. My understanding is that old trees trap less CO2 than new growth.

The source of the "data" used to reach the conclusion in that article is cited as "According to the World Carfree Network (WCN)". I think I would need a little more objective source and perhaps some actual data and methodology explained before blindly accepting it as TRUTH.

 

[bilby]

Deforestation isn't as bad as we've been led to believe. Compared to other things we're doing to the environment deforestation is not the among the worst offenders. It's just an easier sell to the masses. Few things get them going like sad furry animals.

A bigger problem is what we're using that land for. We're growing extreme luxury foods that are not sustainable. Shipping them across the globe.

It's reached a point where it's normal for people in Sweden to have access to fresh oranges and pineapple all year round. That sort of behaviour needs to stop. It's so abdurdly frivolous. Or tiger shrimps available globally at any time. And it's not like it's much of a sacrifice to stop this nonsense. There's replacement foods that are just fine.

If we just stopped eating like idiots we could sustain ten times more humans easy. Our behaviour now is just preposterous.

I agree with a lot of that. I also read that if we all stopped eating meat, or ate it much less often, that would help too. And expecting meat to be cheap adds to the problem, again so I read.

Just on deforestation, I had in mind not the loss of wildlife (though that is an issue too, with only 40% of all world species extant today compared to how many there were 50 years ago) but the issue of CO2. Apparently, deforestation results in more atmospheric CO2 than the sum total of all the cars and trucks on the world's roads:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

When reading claims in articles, it is always good to consider how objectively the "research" was done. The fact that it supports what you want to believe is not sufficient. My understanding is that old trees trap less CO2 than new growth.

The source of the "data" used to reach the conclusion in that article is cited as "According to the World Carfree Network (WCN)". I think I would need a little more objective source and perhaps some actual data and methodology explained before blindly accepting it as TRUTH.

The effects of deforestation are very variable, depending both on the way the deforestation is done, and on the use to which the former forest land is put once cleared.

When land is cleared with no intent to use the timber, the trees are typically burned, adding CO₂ to the atmosphere; If the land is then paved over and used for urban or suburban development, that carbon dioxide increase is not offset much by the new land use, and the effect on climate could be large and detrimental.

When old growth forests are logged for timber, however, the carbon that they captured remains captured - it becomes houses, boats, fence-posts, paper, and furniture, rather than trees, but it's still locked away. If the old growth forest is replaced by new plantation pine, which grows very fast, and which is in turn logged for timber, the net effect on atmospheric CO₂ can be significant and beneficial.

Land cleared for agriculture can become a carbon sink, or a carbon source, depending on exactly what kind of agriculture it hosts.

It's certainly not as simple as 'deforestation results in more atmospheric CO₂'. Very little forested land is being cleared for urban development. Most goes to agricultural use - and a lot to reforestation with plantation lumber.

Ultimately the balance between biomass carbon and atmospheric carbon is fairly stable, as most land hosts growing plants. The really significant driver of CO₂ levels in the atmosphere remains the release of fossil carbon - almost entirely due to its use as fuel. If you ignore the CO₂ subsequently absorbed by the new land use after the trees are cleared, then I could easily believe that "deforestation results in more atmospheric CO2 than the sum total of all the cars and trucks on the world's roads". But it's not reasonable to ignore that sink, and so the increase is largely ephemeral - unlike the chronic increase in atmospheric CO₂ due to fossil fuel burning.

 

[skepticalbip]

^^^

That is pretty much what I said.

I think I would need a little more objective source and perhaps some actual data and methodology explained before blindly accepting it as TRUTH.

The article cited WCN (an activist organization that has a goal of eliminating autos) as its source. The article presented no description of the methodology WCN used to reach the conclusions in their claims.

 

[DBT]

A report from Europe;

Some facts about consumption

* Europe consumes more resources than most other regions. An average European citizen uses approximately four times more resources than one in Africa and three times more than one in Asia, but half of that of a citizen of the USA, Canada or Australia

* Resource use in Europe is increasing. Resource use per person increased by 9.1% in the EU-27 between 2000 and 2007, reaching some 17 tonnes per person annually. Of the 8.2 billion tonnes of materials used in the EU in 2007, minerals and metals accounted for more than half, while fossil fuels and biomass were approximately a quarter each.

* Europe can use resources more efficiently. 87% of EU citizens agree that Europe could use its natural resources more efficiently, and 41% think that their household produces too much waste.

* Europeans use more and more space for living. The average floor area of dwellings increased from 81 to 87 m² since 1990, while the number of people per household decreased from 2.8 to 2.4.

* Europeans travel more kilometres by car. Although cars on average become more fuel-efficient, overall fuel consumption for private cars barely goes down, mainly because more kilometres are driven.

* An estimated 89 million tonnes of food ends up as waste each year in the EU. This is roughly 180 kg per citizen, wasted in households, manufacturing, shops and restaurants. In the UK, 25% of food purchased is thrown out, of which nearly two-thirds could have been eaten.

* Consumption indirectly uses water. For example, a cheeseburger requires 2,400 litres of water to produce, including the bread, beef and cheese. There are also indirect greenhouse gas emissions from our consumption. Staying with the burger example, producing the average patty results in more carbon emissions than driving 15 km in a large car.

* Current consumption leads to unsustainable waste levels. In 2008, every citizen on average threw out 444 kg of household waste, and indirectly generated 5.2 tonnes of waste in the European economy. And this is just in the EU - no data are available on waste generated from producing products and materials which are imported from other regions.

 

[bilby]

A report from Europe;

Some facts about consumption

* Europe consumes more resources than most other regions. An average European citizen uses approximately four times more resources than one in Africa and three times more than one in Asia, but half of that of a citizen of the USA, Canada or Australia

* Resource use in Europe is increasing. Resource use per person increased by 9.1% in the EU-27 between 2000 and 2007, reaching some 17 tonnes per person annually. Of the 8.2 billion tonnes of materials used in the EU in 2007, minerals and metals accounted for more than half, while fossil fuels and biomass were approximately a quarter each.

* Europe can use resources more efficiently. 87% of EU citizens agree that Europe could use its natural resources more efficiently, and 41% think that their household produces too much waste.

* Europeans use more and more space for living. The average floor area of dwellings increased from 81 to 87 m² since 1990, while the number of people per household decreased from 2.8 to 2.4.

* Europeans travel more kilometres by car. Although cars on average become more fuel-efficient, overall fuel consumption for private cars barely goes down, mainly because more kilometres are driven.

* An estimated 89 million tonnes of food ends up as waste each year in the EU. This is roughly 180 kg per citizen, wasted in households, manufacturing, shops and restaurants. In the UK, 25% of food purchased is thrown out, of which nearly two-thirds could have been eaten.

* Consumption indirectly uses water. For example, a cheeseburger requires 2,400 litres of water to produce, including the bread, beef and cheese. There are also indirect greenhouse gas emissions from our consumption. Staying with the burger example, producing the average patty results in more carbon emissions than driving 15 km in a large car.

* Current consumption leads to unsustainable waste levels. In 2008, every citizen on average threw out 444 kg of household waste, and indirectly generated 5.2 tonnes of waste in the European economy. And this is just in the EU - no data are available on waste generated from producing products and materials which are imported from other regions.

Resources are not consumed; They are dispersed, they are utilized, and they are moved around a lot - but they are NOT consumed. Where do you imagine that they go to?

Reserves are consumed, and replaced by the exploration of resources.

Re-concentration of previously used resources will only occur when it is cheaper to develop a reserve from previously used material than it is to develop a reserve from previously unused stuff.

This already happens with steel, glass and aluminium - raw materials for products made of these things are sourced from scrap and recycling, as well as from new ores.

Food is not scarce - there are more people in ill-health due to too much food than due to too little. Famine is a thing of the past. Who cares if we waste food? It just gets recycled back into the biosphere anyway.

Waste is not 'unsustainable'. You just put it back into the holes the raw material came out of. One day, perhaps we will dig it up and recycle it. But it's not going away - there is no 'away'.

Only energy really matters. With cheap enough energy, we can do anything. And extracting fossil fuels for energy is a bad plan, so we need to stop doing that.

But the first law of thermodynamics applies. No materials are lost due to human activity (except some helium and the tiny amount of stuff we used in deep space probes). The rest is all here, and often in quite viable concentrations - landfills may not make good sources of many materials yet (other than methane); But scrapyards certainly are a viable source of steel, rather than digging it out of the Pilbara.

Resources cannot be consumed. Nothing is going to run out. We still have all the stuff we had to begin with - it's just been moved around a bit. Most of it is still as concentrated (or even more concentrated) as it was when we first dug it out of the ground.

A cheeseburger almost certainly doesn't need 2,400 litres of water to produce - but if it did, so what? We are not short of water - three quarters of the planet is covered in the stuff, and it can be desalinated for around $5 per tonne - so on those occasions when not enough falls out of the sky free of charge, we still have no need to fear running out.

Environmentalists love to multiply, but seem to forget division. If we use 17 tonnes per person per year, that's not a problem - a single person can shift 450 tonnes of material these days. So we are not going to struggle to shift those resources from where they are to where they are needed, no matter how many excitingly large numbers they can throw at us.

The world is a big place. Those numbers may look big if you imagine them piled up next to your house; But they are shared amongst 7.5 billion people; and they represent a tiny scratch in the surface of the planet. Nothing is going to run out. Our only significant resource use problem is too much of something - atmospheric CO₂. And the solutions to that problem require only the political will to implement them.

Once coal, oil and gas go the way of baleen and whale-oil, and are replaced with more sensible options, everything will resolve itself. And nobody needs to go without a cheeseburger to achieve that.

 

[repoman]

Holy fuck, you are a cornucopian

 

[DrZoidberg]

Just on deforestation, I had in mind not the loss of wildlife (though that is an issue too, with only 40% of all world species extant today compared to how many there were 50 years ago) but the issue of CO2. Apparently, deforestation results in more atmospheric CO2 than the sum total of all the cars and trucks on the world's roads:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

In the big picture trees hold a tiny amount of overall C02. The reason is that trees are part of a cycle. They don't store shit. They hold it for a little while. It's like a creature breathing, but one breath every 50-100 years. It's a constant process. So cutting them down, doesn't do much, in the big picture. On land, the stuff that stores a vast majority of C02 is stuff that grows below ground. It's microbes and such. And we're not fucking with that. That's doing it's job like it's always done.

The big one is the oceans. And that's also doing just fine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

So basically, when it comes to global warming... we can lose the trees. That's not the issue. The risk with focusing on the trees, is that we miss the big one... fossil fuels. That's the big one. We should keep all our focus on that, and not get distracted by side shows.

 

[repoman]

Yeah, fossil fuels are a fluke and the only similar analogue to them are large basalt floods which have happened occasionally. These release massive amounts of CO2.

Then that heats up the planet and lead to faster weathering of rock that can then become limestone in the bottom of the ocean. Eventually it will come out in the air through volcanism.

Sometimes the rocks that volcanoes are feeding on are carbonate rich (or there is lots of volcanism) and the earth is hotter until weathering occurs. Or the rocks it feeds on are carbonate poor and it gets colder.

 

[DBT]

A report from Europe;

Some facts about consumption

* Europe consumes more resources than most other regions. An average European citizen uses approximately four times more resources than one in Africa and three times more than one in Asia, but half of that of a citizen of the USA, Canada or Australia

* Resource use in Europe is increasing. Resource use per person increased by 9.1% in the EU-27 between 2000 and 2007, reaching some 17 tonnes per person annually. Of the 8.2 billion tonnes of materials used in the EU in 2007, minerals and metals accounted for more than half, while fossil fuels and biomass were approximately a quarter each.

* Europe can use resources more efficiently. 87% of EU citizens agree that Europe could use its natural resources more efficiently, and 41% think that their household produces too much waste.

* Europeans use more and more space for living. The average floor area of dwellings increased from 81 to 87 m² since 1990, while the number of people per household decreased from 2.8 to 2.4.

* Europeans travel more kilometres by car. Although cars on average become more fuel-efficient, overall fuel consumption for private cars barely goes down, mainly because more kilometres are driven.

* An estimated 89 million tonnes of food ends up as waste each year in the EU. This is roughly 180 kg per citizen, wasted in households, manufacturing, shops and restaurants. In the UK, 25% of food purchased is thrown out, of which nearly two-thirds could have been eaten.

* Consumption indirectly uses water. For example, a cheeseburger requires 2,400 litres of water to produce, including the bread, beef and cheese. There are also indirect greenhouse gas emissions from our consumption. Staying with the burger example, producing the average patty results in more carbon emissions than driving 15 km in a large car.

* Current consumption leads to unsustainable waste levels. In 2008, every citizen on average threw out 444 kg of household waste, and indirectly generated 5.2 tonnes of waste in the European economy. And this is just in the EU - no data are available on waste generated from producing products and materials which are imported from other regions.

Resources are not consumed; They are dispersed, they are utilized, and they are moved around a lot - but they are NOT consumed. Where do you imagine that they go to?

Reserves are consumed, and replaced by the exploration of resources.

Re-concentration of previously used resources will only occur when it is cheaper to develop a reserve from previously used material than it is to develop a reserve from previously unused stuff.

This already happens with steel, glass and aluminium - raw materials for products made of these things are sourced from scrap and recycling, as well as from new ores.

Food is not scarce - there are more people in ill-health due to too much food than due to too little. Famine is a thing of the past. Who cares if we waste food? It just gets recycled back into the biosphere anyway.

Waste is not 'unsustainable'. You just put it back into the holes the raw material came out of. One day, perhaps we will dig it up and recycle it. But it's not going away - there is no 'away'.

Only energy really matters. With cheap enough energy, we can do anything. And extracting fossil fuels for energy is a bad plan, so we need to stop doing that.

But the first law of thermodynamics applies. No materials are lost due to human activity (except some helium and the tiny amount of stuff we used in deep space probes). The rest is all here, and often in quite viable concentrations - landfills may not make good sources of many materials yet (other than methane); But scrapyards certainly are a viable source of steel, rather than digging it out of the Pilbara.

Resources cannot be consumed. Nothing is going to run out. We still have all the stuff we had to begin with - it's just been moved around a bit. Most of it is still as concentrated (or even more concentrated) as it was when we first dug it out of the ground.

A cheeseburger almost certainly doesn't need 2,400 litres of water to produce - but if it did, so what? We are not short of water - three quarters of the planet is covered in the stuff, and it can be desalinated for around $5 per tonne - so on those occasions when not enough falls out of the sky free of charge, we still have no need to fear running out.

Environmentalists love to multiply, but seem to forget division. If we use 17 tonnes per person per year, that's not a problem - a single person can shift 450 tonnes of material these days. So we are not going to struggle to shift those resources from where they are to where they are needed, no matter how many excitingly large numbers they can throw at us.

The world is a big place. Those numbers may look big if you imagine them piled up next to your house; But they are shared amongst 7.5 billion people; and they represent a tiny scratch in the surface of the planet. Nothing is going to run out. Our only significant resource use problem is too much of something - atmospheric CO₂. And the solutions to that problem require only the political will to implement them.

Once coal, oil and gas go the way of baleen and whale-oil, and are replaced with more sensible options, everything will resolve itself. And nobody needs to go without a cheeseburger to achieve that.

That is the optimistic view. I hope it can work out that way, I hope it does work out that way, but given human nature, business interests, growth, consumerism, etc, etc ....I have my doubts. More likely that it will be a major environmental crisis that will will force a much needed radical change in human behaviour.

 

[Jokodo]

That is, of course, trivially true. What it also is is irrelevant.

It is not trivially true.

You need to keep better track of your own claims and statements -- they're the context of my responses, you know?

You said that 1.09% of 12 billion is more than 1.09% of 7 billion. It's trivially true because it follows from the definition of "percent"; or "%".

It is also irrelevant because no one who's taken a look at actual data seriously suggests that we'll be having a 1.09% annual growth by the time we reach 12 billion, if indeed we ever reach 12 billion.

 

[steve_bank]

This thread has descended into the American left vs right polarized climate views. Conservatives generally ignoring the fact that we see effects today. Both physical and social.

Watched a PBS show on NYC preparing for sea level rise. Now construction techniques and ways to limit storm surges. Ways to seal off subways. Flood plains like the area in Queens devastated by Sandy may have to be abandoned.

There was a show on Tokyo and how they derail with quakes and flooding. They have a system of large capacity underground space for water to go. As they get full they are pumped to above ground holding areas.For quakes utilities are below ground in tunnels to a depth below which quakes have much impact.

 

[bilby]

A report from Europe;

Some facts about consumption

* Europe consumes more resources than most other regions. An average European citizen uses approximately four times more resources than one in Africa and three times more than one in Asia, but half of that of a citizen of the USA, Canada or Australia

* Resource use in Europe is increasing. Resource use per person increased by 9.1% in the EU-27 between 2000 and 2007, reaching some 17 tonnes per person annually. Of the 8.2 billion tonnes of materials used in the EU in 2007, minerals and metals accounted for more than half, while fossil fuels and biomass were approximately a quarter each.

* Europe can use resources more efficiently. 87% of EU citizens agree that Europe could use its natural resources more efficiently, and 41% think that their household produces too much waste.

* Europeans use more and more space for living. The average floor area of dwellings increased from 81 to 87 m² since 1990, while the number of people per household decreased from 2.8 to 2.4.

* Europeans travel more kilometres by car. Although cars on average become more fuel-efficient, overall fuel consumption for private cars barely goes down, mainly because more kilometres are driven.

* An estimated 89 million tonnes of food ends up as waste each year in the EU. This is roughly 180 kg per citizen, wasted in households, manufacturing, shops and restaurants. In the UK, 25% of food purchased is thrown out, of which nearly two-thirds could have been eaten.

* Consumption indirectly uses water. For example, a cheeseburger requires 2,400 litres of water to produce, including the bread, beef and cheese. There are also indirect greenhouse gas emissions from our consumption. Staying with the burger example, producing the average patty results in more carbon emissions than driving 15 km in a large car.

* Current consumption leads to unsustainable waste levels. In 2008, every citizen on average threw out 444 kg of household waste, and indirectly generated 5.2 tonnes of waste in the European economy. And this is just in the EU - no data are available on waste generated from producing products and materials which are imported from other regions.

Resources are not consumed; They are dispersed, they are utilized, and they are moved around a lot - but they are NOT consumed. Where do you imagine that they go to?

Reserves are consumed, and replaced by the exploration of resources.

Re-concentration of previously used resources will only occur when it is cheaper to develop a reserve from previously used material than it is to develop a reserve from previously unused stuff.

This already happens with steel, glass and aluminium - raw materials for products made of these things are sourced from scrap and recycling, as well as from new ores.

Food is not scarce - there are more people in ill-health due to too much food than due to too little. Famine is a thing of the past. Who cares if we waste food? It just gets recycled back into the biosphere anyway.

Waste is not 'unsustainable'. You just put it back into the holes the raw material came out of. One day, perhaps we will dig it up and recycle it. But it's not going away - there is no 'away'.

Only energy really matters. With cheap enough energy, we can do anything. And extracting fossil fuels for energy is a bad plan, so we need to stop doing that.

But the first law of thermodynamics applies. No materials are lost due to human activity (except some helium and the tiny amount of stuff we used in deep space probes). The rest is all here, and often in quite viable concentrations - landfills may not make good sources of many materials yet (other than methane); But scrapyards certainly are a viable source of steel, rather than digging it out of the Pilbara.

Resources cannot be consumed. Nothing is going to run out. We still have all the stuff we had to begin with - it's just been moved around a bit. Most of it is still as concentrated (or even more concentrated) as it was when we first dug it out of the ground.

A cheeseburger almost certainly doesn't need 2,400 litres of water to produce - but if it did, so what? We are not short of water - three quarters of the planet is covered in the stuff, and it can be desalinated for around $5 per tonne - so on those occasions when not enough falls out of the sky free of charge, we still have no need to fear running out.

Environmentalists love to multiply, but seem to forget division. If we use 17 tonnes per person per year, that's not a problem - a single person can shift 450 tonnes of material these days. So we are not going to struggle to shift those resources from where they are to where they are needed, no matter how many excitingly large numbers they can throw at us.

The world is a big place. Those numbers may look big if you imagine them piled up next to your house; But they are shared amongst 7.5 billion people; and they represent a tiny scratch in the surface of the planet. Nothing is going to run out. Our only significant resource use problem is too much of something - atmospheric CO₂. And the solutions to that problem require only the political will to implement them.

Once coal, oil and gas go the way of baleen and whale-oil, and are replaced with more sensible options, everything will resolve itself. And nobody needs to go without a cheeseburger to achieve that.

That is the optimistic view. I hope it can work out that way, I hope it does work out that way, but given human nature, business interests, growth, consumerism, etc, etc ....I have my doubts. More likely that it will be a major environmental crisis that will will force a much needed radical change in human behaviour.

I am not sure how the law of conservation of mass can be considered 'optimistic', but if you say so.

You keep saying that you have doubts; But when asked to quantify them, you go all quiet.

I asked a simple question, and you ignored it. Here it is again:

Resources are not consumed; They are dispersed, they are utilized, and they are moved around a lot - but they are NOT consumed. Where do you imagine that they go to?